Posted on

Qualitative Research: Definition, Types, Methods and Examples

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as a market research method that focuses on obtaining data through open-ended and conversational communication.

This method is not only about “what” people think but also “why” they think so. For example, consider a convenience store looking to improve its patronage. A systematic observation concludes that the number of men visiting this store are more. One good method to determine why women were not visiting the store is to conduct an in-depth interview of potential customers in the category.

For example, on successfully interviewing female customers, visiting the nearby stores and malls, and selecting them through random sampling, it was known that the store doesn’t have enough items for women and so there were fewer women visiting the store, which was understood only by personally interacting with them and understanding why they didn’t visit the store, because there were more male products than female ones.

Qualitative research is based on the disciplines of social sciences like psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Therefore, the qualitative research methods allow for in-depth and further probing and questioning of respondents based on their responses, where the interviewer/researcher also tries to understand their motivation and feelings. Understanding how your audience takes decisions can help derive conclusions in market research.

Types of qualitative research methods with examples

Qualitative research methods are designed in a manner that help reveal the behavior and perception of a target audience with reference to a particular topic. There are different types of qualitative research methods like an in-depth interview, focus groups, ethnographic research, content analysis, case study research that are usually used.

[blog_posts style=”push” col_spacing=”small” columns=”3″ columns__md=”1″ depth_hover=”2″ slider_nav_style=”simple” slider_bullets=”true” auto_slide=”8000″ ids=”8441,8473,8479″ show_date=”false” excerpt_length=”0″ comments=”false” image_height=”56.25%” image_size=”original” image_hover=”zoom”]

[blog_posts style=”push” col_spacing=”small” columns=”3″ columns__md=”1″ depth_hover=”2″ slider_nav_style=”simple” slider_bullets=”true” auto_slide=”8000″ ids=”8494,8596,8601″ show_date=”false” excerpt_length=”0″ comments=”false” image_height=”56.25%” image_size=”original” image_hover=”zoom”]

The results of qualitative methods are more descriptive and the inferences can be drawn quite easily from the data that is obtained.

Qualitative research methods originated in the social and behavioral sciences. Today our world is more complicated and it is difficult to understand what people think and perceive. Online qualitative research methods make it easier to understand that as it is more communicative and descriptive.

The following are the qualitative research methods that are frequently used. Also, read about qualitative research examples:

1. One-on-one interview:

Conducting in-depth interviews is one of the most common qualitative research methods. It is a personal interview that is carried out with one respondent at a time. This is purely a conversational method and invites opportunities to get details in depth from the respondent.

One of the advantages of this method provides a great opportunity to gather precise data about what people believe and what their motivations are. If the researcher is well experienced asking the right questions can help him/her collect meaningful data. If they should need more information the researchers should ask such follow up questions that will help them collect more information.

These interviews can be performed face-to-face or on phone and usually can last between half an hour to two hours or even more. When the in-depth interview is conducted face to face it gives a better opportunity to read the body language of the respondents and match the responses.

2. Focus groups: A focus group is also one of the commonly used qualitative research methods, used in data collection. A focus group usually includes a limited number of respondents (6-10) from within your target market.

The main aim of the focus group is to find answers to the “why” “what” and “how” questions. One advantage of focus groups is, you don’t necessarily need to interact with the group in person. Nowadays focus groups can be sent an online survey on various devices and responses can be collected at the click of a button.

Focus groups are an expensive method as compared to the other online qualitative research methods. Typically they are used to explain complex processes. This method is very useful when it comes to market research on new products and testing new concepts.

3. Ethnographic research: Ethnographic research is the most in-depth observational method that studies people in their naturally occurring environment.

This method requires the researchers to adapt to the target audiences’ environments which could be anywhere from an organization to a city or any remote location. Here geographical constraints can be an issue while collecting data.

This research design aims to understand the cultures, challenges, motivations, and settings that occur. Instead of relying on interviews and discussions, you experience the natural settings first hand.

This type of research method can last from a few days to a few years, as it involves in-depth observation and collecting data on those grounds. It’s a challenging and a time-consuming method and solely depends on the expertise of the researcher to be able to analyze, observe and infer the data.

4. Case study research: The case study method has evolved over the past few years and developed into a valuable qual research method. As the name suggests it is used for explaining an organization or an entity.

This type of research method is used within a number of areas like education, social sciences and similar. This method may look difficult to operate, however, it is one of the simplest ways of conducting research as it involves a deep dive and thorough understanding of the data collection methods and inferring the data.

5. Record keeping: 

This method makes use of the already existing reliable documents and similar sources of information as the data source. This data can be used in new research. This is similar to going to a library. There one can go over books and other reference material to collect relevant data that can likely be used in the research.

6. Process of observation:

Qualitative Observation is a process of research that uses subjective methodologies to gather systematic information or data. Since, the focus on qualitative observation is the research process of using subjective methodologies to gather information or data. Qualitative observation is primarily used to equate quality differences.

Qualitative observation deals with the 5 major sensory organs and their functioning – sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing. This doesn’t involve measurements or numbers but instead characteristics.

Qualitative research: data collection and analysis

A. Qualitative data collection

Qualitative data collection allows collecting data that is non-numeric and helps us to explore how decisions are made and provide us with detailed insight. For reaching such conclusions the data that is collected should be holistic, rich, and nuanced and findings to emerge through careful analysis.

  1. Whatever method a researcher chooses for collecting qualitative data, one aspect is very clear the process will generate a large amount of data. In addition to the variety of methods available, there are also different methods of collecting and recording the data.

For example, if the qualitative data is collected through a focus group or one-to-one discussion, there will be handwritten notes or video recorded tapes. If there are recording they should be transcribed and before the process of data analysis can begin.

  1. As a rough guide, it can take a seasoned researcher 8-10 hours to transcribe the recordings of an interview, which can generate roughly 20-30 pages of dialogues. Many researchers also like to maintain separate folders to maintain the recording collected from the different focus group. This helps them compartmentalize the data collected.
  2. In case there are running notes taken, which are also known as field notes, they are helpful in maintaining comments, environmental contexts, nonverbal cues etc. These filed notes are helpful and can be compared while transcribing audio recorded data. Such notes are usually informal but should be secured in a similar manner as the video recordings or the audio tapes.

B. Qualitative data analysis

Qualitative data analysis such as notes, videos, audio recordings images, and text documents. One of the most used methods for qualitative data analysis is text analysis.

Text analysis is a  data analysis method that is distinctly different from all other qualitative research methods, where researchers analyze the social life of the participants in the research study and decode the words, actions, etc.

There are images also that are used in this research study and the researchers analyze the context in which the images are used and draw inferences from them. In the last decade, text analysis through what is shared on social media platforms has gained supreme popularity.

Characteristics of qualitative research methods

  1. Qualitative research methods usually collect data at the sight, where the participants are experiencing issues or problems. These are real-time data and rarely bring the participants out of the geographic locations to collect information.
  2. Qualitative researchers typically gather multiple forms of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, rather than rely on a single data source.
  3. This type of research method works towards solving complex issues by breaking down into meaningful inferences, that is easily readable and understood by all.
  4. Since it’s a more communicative method, people can build their trust on the researcher and the information thus obtained is raw and unadulterated.

When to use qualitative research

Researchers make use of qualitative research techniques when they need to capture accurate, in-depth insights. It is very useful to capture “factual data”. Here are some examples of when to use qualitative research.

  • Developing a new product or generating an idea.
  • Studying your product/brand or service to strengthen your marketing strategy.
  • To understand your strengths and weaknesses.
  • Understanding purchase behavior.
  • To study the reactions of your audience to marketing campaigns and other communications.
  • Exploring market demographics, segments, and customer groups.
  • Gathering perception data of a brand, company, or product.

Qualitative research methods vs quantitative research methods

The basic differences between qualitative research methods and quantitative research methods are simple and straightforward. They differ in:

  • Their analytical objectives
  • Types of questions asked
  • Types of data collection instruments
  • Forms of data they produce
  • Degree of flexibility
Attributes Qualitative research methods Quantitative research methods
Analytical objectives This research method focuses on describing individual experiences and beliefs. Quantitative research method focuses on describing the characteristics of a population.
Types of questions asked Open-ended questions Closed-ended questions
Data collection Instrument Use semi-structured methods such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and participant observation Use highly structured methods such as structured observation using questionnaires and surveys
Form of data produced Descriptive data Numerical data
Degree of flexibility Participant responses affect how and which questions researchers ask next Participant responses do not influence or determine how and which questions researchers ask next
Posted on

Qualitative methods: what and why use them?

Qualitative methods, as the name indicates, are methods that do not involve measurement or statistics.  Because the natural sciences have had such resounding success with quantitative methods, qualitative methods are sometimes looked down upon as less scientific.  That is, of course, a mistake.  Qualitative methods have been in use in philosophy, sociology, and history for centuries, and many of the famous studies we refer to in psychology classes every day were actually qualitative!

One qualitative method that goes back a long way is the case study.  When physicians like Sigmund Freud became interested in psychological problems, they continued their tradition of writing and publishing descriptions of their most interesting patients, the treatments they attempted to use, and the progress of the disorder.  Much of the content of abnormal psychology, for example, is built upon these case studies.

Another example is the méthode clinique or clinical method.  This method was particularly well used by Jean Piaget and his followers.  The basic idea is to present a person (in Piaget’s case, usually a young child) with a situation or problem for them to deal with.  The researcher observes how they handle the situation and asks them questions to try to understand the thought processes they are using.  Another version of the méthode clinique is called experimental phenomenology.  One study, for example, asked chess masters and novices to think out loud while playing chess, and analyzed the differences in approach.  One more example is the method of introspection used by Wilhelm Wundt — often considered the founder of scientific psychology — and his students.  Researchers paid careful attention to their own perceptions of simple events like colors, and noted changes in their perceptions following changes in the events.

Probably the oldest qualitative method is naturalistic observation.  This has been used by biologists who study animals in the wild (ethologists) for centuries, and by sociologists studying people’s behavior for nearly as long.  The idea of naturalistic observation is to step back from the situation and make every effort not to interfere.  A biologist studying birds, for example, may construct a blind — a small hut covered with natural materials — so as not to disturb the birds.  Child psychologists often observe children in a similar way.  In experimental schools, the children are often so used to being observed that the researchers don’t even have to hide!  Recently, video and audio technology has allowed us to do the same with people.  Unfortunately, the ethics of spying on people is very questionable!

A variation on naturalistic observation used by some sociologists and psychologists is called participant observation.  A sociologist who is interested in studying the lifestyles of people in some subculture (say a motorcycle gang) may actually join the subculture and interact with the people.  Many anthropologists use this technique as well.  In most cases, it is clear to all that the researcher is not really a part of the group, but sometimes the researcher hides his identity as a researcher.

One of the most useful qualitative techniques is interviewing.  It is often a part of all of the preceding methods.  Contrary to what many people believe, interviewing is not easy.  In fact, it is a rare person who is truly skillful at interviewing.  You have to be very careful not to listen to the person you interview through any prejudiced ideas you might have.  You have to make sure you are not leading the person in the direction you would like them to go.  You have to make sure you don’t misinterpret what they say.  In other words, you need to be very aware of your own biases!

Many researchers using qualitative methods adhere to a school of thought called phenomenology, and refer to their methods as phenomenological methods.  Phenomenology is the study of the contents of consciousness — phenomena — and phenomenological methods are ways of describing and analyzing these contents.  Originally, the methods focussed on describing one’s own thought, feelings, and perceptions.  For example, researchers would investigate their own experiences of an emotion such as anger, or cognitive processes like making a decision.  As you can imagine, the problem of biases are even more difficult to handle in these kind of studies.  Many people, if asked about their experiences of anger, might say something like “I could feel the adrenaline flowing through my veins!”  Unfortunately, that is a prejudicial statement based on people’s common knowledge about the presence of adrenaline.  In fact, nobody actually feels adrenaline in their veins!  We may feel muscle tension, or the hair raising in our necks, or a change in our hearing — but not adrenaline in our  veins.

As time went on, other ways of investigating phenomena were added.  For example, the researcher might ask other people to write what are called protocols — naïve descriptions of their experiences — and use them for analysis.  This is done, for example, when the researcher wants to investigate something he or she doesn’t have personal experience with, such as a schizophrenics verbal hallucinations.

There are arguments for and against the use of qualitative methods.  The most common criticisms of qualitative methods revolve around the problem of bias mentioned above:  It is much easier for biases to creep into qualitative studies than into quantitative ones.  The great advantage of measurement is that, once we have agreed upon what constitutes a measure (say, a meter stick), everyone can use it and be fairly confident that what they measure is what anyone else would measure.  If, on the other hand, we say “this looks like navy blue to me,” someone else might say “no, I think it’s purple,” and another person “no, it’s clearly royal blue!”

The arguments for qualitative methods revolve around realism.  Measures do not encompass the whole of an event.  You can ask people to rate their anxiety, but how much will that tell you about what they are actually feeling?  How do you measure something like love or hate?  Or think about the anthropologist looking at a culture:  Does counting the number of artifacts or timing rituals tell you much about their meaning to the people involved?  Or consider a person’s personality:  Do scores on personality tests tell you much about a person’s life or experiences?  Qualitative researchers would say not much!

Although quantitative methods are still preferred in psychology, more and more people are acknowledging that qualitative methods also have an important place.  Not everything about human beings can be understood by measurement, or in laboratories, or by using rats and pigeons.

Numerous specific research methods/instruments are used when conducting qualitative research.

[blog_posts style=”push” col_spacing=”small” columns=”3″ columns__md=”1″ depth_hover=”2″ slider_nav_style=”simple” slider_bullets=”true” auto_slide=”8000″ ids=”8441,8479,8473″ show_date=”false” excerpt_length=”0″ comments=”false” image_height=”56.25%” image_size=”original” image_hover=”zoom”]

[blog_posts style=”push” col_spacing=”small” columns=”3″ columns__md=”1″ depth_hover=”2″ slider_nav_style=”simple” slider_bullets=”true” auto_slide=”8000″ ids=”8494,8596,8601″ show_date=”false” excerpt_length=”0″ comments=”false” image_height=”56.25%” image_size=”original” image_hover=”zoom”]

  • Case Studies
  • Conversation Analysis
  • Field Studies
  • Focus Groups
  • Interviews
  • Naturalistic Observation
  • Participant Observation
  • Ethnography
  • Phenomenology
  • Autoethnography- This bibliography is compiled from a section of Heather Forest’s ILA on Autoethnography & Storytelling. It includes citations for several peer review journal articles that describe recent autoethnographic studies.
  • Grounded Theory Methods Folder- This bibliography contains references historical and recent books on grounded theory methodology and symbolic interactionalism.
  • Critical Discourse Analysis- Books, chapters, journal articles, whole journals, & dissertations.
Posted on

Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

If the subject into which you conduct research is a scientific subject or topic, then the research methods include experiments, tests, the study of many other results of different experiments performed earlier about the topic or the subject and the like.

On the other hand, research methodology about the scientific topic involves the techniques regarding how to go about conducting the research, the justification of the use of particular tools of research, advanced techniques that can be used in performing the experiments, and the like.

A method is what you did. It is a simple description. You selected, for example, 100 rats and measured their weights. You fed some rats and some not.

A week later, you measured their weights again.

The methodology is why that should give you a meaningful result and why you used some specified method and not some other one.

This would, in particular, include the way you have controlled for errors, e.g., why you fed the rats for a week rather than a month and why 100 rats you thought were enough.

The table below summarizes the primary differences between the research methods and research methodology.

Quantitative research Qualitative research
Research method seeks to answer: what did the researcher use to complete his research. Research methodology seeks to answer: how did the researcher complete his study.
Research methods are the techniques and tools by which you research a subject or a topic. Methodology explains and justifies the techniques and tools by which you may proceed with your research.
Research methods involve the tasks of conducting experiments, tests, surveys, and the like utilizing the knowledge and skills learned through research methodology. Research methodology involves the learning of various techniques to conduct research and acquiring knowledge to perform tests, experiments, surveys, and critical analysis.
The research method aims at finding solutions to research problems. Research methodology ensures the employment of the correct procedures to solve the problems.
Research methods are the end of any scientific or non-scientific research. Research methodology paves the way to choose appropriate research methods and thus is the beginning of any research.
Posted on

Choosing a Research Approach: Qualitative or Quantitative?

Researchers have to decide what type of approach they want to use to collect and to analyze their data. In other words, how they are going to tackle the empirical side of their research. We begin this section by examining what distinguishes a qualitative from a quantitative approach. We then show how these two approaches can be complementary.

1. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

It is conventional in research to make a distinction between the qualitative and the quantitative. However this distinction is both equivocal and ambiguous.1 The distinction is equivocal as it is based on a multiplicity of criteria. In con­sulting works on research methodology we find, in sections discussing the dis­tinction between qualitative and quantitative, references to ‘qualitative or quantitative data’ (Downey and Ireland, 1979; Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Miles, 1979; Miles and Huberman, 1984b; Silverman, 1993); to quantitative and quali­tative variables (Evrard et al., 1993; Lambin, 1990), and to ‘qualitative methods’ (Jick, 1979; Silverman, 1993; Van Maanen, 1979). The distinction between quali­tative and quantitative is, moreover, ambiguous because none of these criteria allow for an absolute distinction between the qualitative and the quantitative approach. We will turn now to a critical examination of the various criteria involved: the nature of the data, the orientation of the research, the objective or subjective character of the results obtained and the flexibility of the research.

As data collection methods, which are among the distinguishing characteris­tics of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, are discussed at length in another chapter in this book (Chapter 9), we will restrict our discussion here to other distinguishing characteristics.

1.1. The qualitative/quantitative distinction and the nature of our data

Does the distinction between qualitative and quantitative go back to the very nature of a researcher’s data?

Many authors distinguish between qualitative and quantitative data. For Miles and Huberman (1984b), qualitative data corresponds to words rather than figures. Similarly, Yin (1989: 88) explains that ‘numerical data’ provides quantitative information, while ‘non-numerical data’ furnishes information that is clearly of a qualitative nature. All the same, the nature of the data does not necessarily impose an identical method of processing it. The researcher can very well carry out, for example, a statistical and consequently quantitative analysis of nominal variables.

According to Evrard et al. (1993: 35), qualitative data corresponds to vari­ables measured on nominal and ordinal (non-metric) scales, while quantitative data is collected using interval scales and proportion scales. These scales can be arranged hierarchically according to the quality of their mathematical pro­perties. As shown in Figure 4.3, this hierarchy goes from a nominal scale, the weakest one from a mathematical point of view, to the proportional scale, the best of the measurement scales.

As Figure 4.3 shows, measuring variables on nominal scales allows us to establish relationships of identification or of belonging of a class. The fact that these classes may be identified by numbers (a department number, for example, or an arbitrarily chosen number) does not in any way change their properties. The one statistical calculation permitted is that of frequency.

Often a classification can be obtained using variables measured on ordinal scales, but the origin of the scale remains arbitrary. If the intervals between categories are unequal, statistical calculations are limited to measures of position (median, quartiles, deciles …). Arithmetical calculations cannot be performed with this data. Once the intervals between categories become equal, however, we can speak of interval scales. More statistical calculations can be carried out on variables measured on this type of scale, as here we move into data said to be ‘quantitative’, or to ‘metric’ scales, for which we can compare intervals and determine ratios of differences or distances. Means and standard deviations can be calculated, however, zero is defined arbitrarily.

The best-known example of an interval scale is that used to measure tem­perature. We know that 0 degrees on the Celsius scale, the freezing point of water, corresponds to 32 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. We can convert a data item from one scale to another by a positive linear transformation (y = ax + b, where a > 0). However, if there is no natural zero, relationships cannot be estab­lished between absolute quantities. For example, it is misleading to say that ‘yesterday was half as hot as today’, when we mean that ‘the temperature was 50 per cent less in degrees Fahrenheit than today’. If the two temperatures are converted into Celsius, it will be seen that ‘half as hot’ is not correct. The arbi­trary choice of zero on the measuring scale has an effect on the relationship between the two measurements.

Where a natural zero exists, we come to proportional scales. Common examples include measurements of money, length or weight. This kind of data is therefore the richest in terms of the possible statistical calculations that can be operated on it, since the researcher will be able to analyze relationships in terms of absolute values of variables such as wage levels or company seniority.

The different aspects of qualitative and quantitative data that we have con­sidered in this chapter clearly show that the nature of the collected data does not dictate the employment of a qualitative or a quantitative research approach. To choose between a qualitative or a quantitative approach we have to evaluate other criteria.

1.2. The qualitative/quantitative distinction in relation to the orientation of the research: to construct or to test

Research in management is characterized by two main preoccupations: con­structing and testing theoretical objects. When researchers direct their work towards verification, they have a clear and definite idea of what they are look­ing for. On the other hand, if they are carrying out explorative research, typi­fied by theoretical construction, researchers are often far less sure of what they may find (see Chapter 3).

It is conventional to correlate investigation with a qualitative approach and verification with a quantitative. Silverman, for example, distinguishes between two ‘schools’ in the social sciences, one oriented towards the quantitative testing of theories, and the other directed at qualitatively developing theories (1993: 21). Once again, however, we find that this association is a received idea – researchers can equally well adopt a quantitative or a qualitative approach whether they are constructing or testing (see Chapter 3). ‘There is no fundamental clash between the purposes and capacities of qualitative and quantitative methods or data … Each form of data is useful for both verification and generation of theory’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967: 17-18).

We should point out here, though, that researchers rarely choose a qualitative approach with the sole intention of testing a theory. This choice is generally accompanied by a fairly definite orientation towards construction. This tendency can be explained by the cost, particularly in time, of using a qualitative approach just to test a theory. If the test turns out to be positive, the researcher will have no choice but to test it again – by conducting another data collection and analysis process. The qualitative approach in effect locks the researcher into a process of falsification, as the only aim can be to refute the theory and not to validate it in any way.

The qualitative approach is not designed to evaluate to what extent one can generalize from an existing theory. In his discussion of the case study, which he positions within the qualitative method, Stake argues that ‘by counter-example, the case study invites a modification of the generalization’ (1995: 8). This modi­fication involves a construction. The limitation of qualitative approaches lies in the fact that such studies are necessarily carried out within a fairly delimited context. Although a researcher can increase the external validity of a qualitative study by including several contexts in the analysis, in accordance with a repli­cation logic (see Chapter 10), the limitations of the qualitative approach in terms of generalization lead us to attribute more external validity to quantitative approaches. Conversely, the qualitative approach gives a greater guarantee of the internal validity of results. Rival explanations of the phenomenon being studied are often far easier to evaluate than they are when a quantitative approach is taken, as researchers are in a better position to cross-check their data. The quali­tative approach also increases the researcher’s ability to describe a complex social system (Marshall and Rossman, 1989).

The choice between a qualitative and a quantitative approach therefore seems to be dictated primarily in terms of each approach’s effectiveness in relation to the orientation of the research; that is, whether one is constructing or testing.

Guarantees of internal and external validity should be considered in parallel, whatever type of research is being carried out. But in order to choose between a qualitative and a quantitative approach, researchers have to decide on the priority they will give to the quality of causal links between variables, or to the generalization of their results. Of course, it would be ideal to assure the greatest validity in results by employing both of these approaches together.

1.3. Qualitative/quantitative research for objective/ subjective results

It is generally acknowledged that quantitative approaches offer a greater assu­rance of objectivity than do qualitative approaches. The necessary strictness and precision of statistical techniques argue for this view. It is, then, not surprising that the quantitative approach is grounded in the positivist paradigm (Silverman, 1993).

While the objective or subjective nature of research results is often seen as forming a divisive line between qualitative and quantitative approaches, there are in fact several areas of possible subjectivity in management research, depending on the particular type of qualitative approach taken. A number of proponents of the qualitative approach have also discussed ways of reducing the subjectivity historically attributed to this research tradition.

According to Erickson (1986), the most distinctive feature of qualitative inves­tigation is its emphasis on interpretation – not simply that of the researcher but, more importantly, that of the individuals who are studied. This emphasis is com­parable to that of ethnographic research, which seeks ‘to reconstruct the cate­gories used by subjects to conceptualize their own experience and world view’ (Goetz and LeCompte, 1981: 54). Other writers, however, emphasize the subjec­tivity of the researcher more than that of the subjects. According to Stake (1995), researchers must position themselves as interpreters of the field they are study­ing, even if their own interpretation may be more labored than that of the research subjects. In fact, the qualitative approach allows for both the subjectivity of the researcher and that of the subjects at the same time. It offers an opportu­nity to confront multiple realities, for it ‘exposes more directly the nature of the transaction between investigator and respondent (or object) and hence makes easier an assessment of the extent to which the phenomenon is described in terms of (is biased by) the investigator’s own posture’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 40).

However, the qualitative approach does not rule out an epistemological pos­ture of objectivity of the research with regard to the world that it is studying. This criterion of objectivity can be seen as an ‘intersubjective agreement’. ‘If multiple observers can agree on a phenomenon, their collective judgment can be said to be objective’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 292). Some proponents of the qualitative approach, notably Glaser and Strauss (1967), have developed a posi­tivist conception of it. For Miles and Huberman (1984b) while the source of social phenomena may be in the minds of the subjects, these phenomena also exist in the real world. These authors argue for an amended positivism, advo­cating the construction of a logical chain of evidence and proof to increase the objectivity of results.

To sum up, data collection and analysis must remain consistent with an explicit epistemological position on the part of the researcher. Although the quali­tative approach allows the researcher to introduce a subjectivity that is incom­patible with the quantitative approach, it should not, however, be limited to a constructivist epistemology.

1.4. The qualitative/quantitative distinction in relation to the flexibility of the study

The question of the flexibility available to the researcher in conducting his or her research project is another crucial factor to consider in choosing whether to use a qualitative or a quantitative approach.

When a qualitative approach is used, the research question can be changed midway, so that the results are truly drawn from the field (Stake, 1995). It is obviously difficult to modify the research question during the more rigid process that is required by the quantitative approach, taking into account the cost that such a modification would entail. With the qualitative approach, too, the researcher usually has the advantage of greater flexibility in collecting data, whereas the quantitative approach usually involves a stricter schedule. Another problem is that once a questionnaire has been administered to a large sample of a population, it can be difficult to assess new rival explanations without taking the research program back to the draft stage.

2. Combined Approaches: Using Sequential Processes and Triangulation Strategies

One way researchers can exploit the complementary nature of qualitative and quantitative approaches is by using a sequential process:

Findings from exploratory qualitative studies may … provide a starting point for further quantitative or qualitative work. In multi-method projects, group discussions and in-depth interviews are frequently used in piloting to clarify concepts and to devise and calibrate instrumentation for inclusion in structured questionnaires.

(Walker, 1985: 20)

The qualitative approach can in this way constitute a necessary and remu­nerative stage in an essentially quantitative study. Given the considerable degree of irreversibility inherent to the quantitative approach, the success of such a research project very much depends on the researcher taking necessary precautions along the way.

Another practical way researchers can combine qualitative and quantitative approaches is by means of a triangulation. This involves using the two appro­aches simultaneously to take advantage of their respective qualities. ‘The achieve­ments of useful hypothetically realistic constructs in a science requires multiple methods focused on the diagnosis of the same construct from independent points of observation through a kind of triangulation’ (Campbell and Fiske, 1959: 81). The idea is to consider a formalized problem by formalizing along two complementary axes. The differential effect can then provide invaluable information for the researcher. Triangulation strategies aim to improve the pre­cision of both measurement and description.

Triangulation allows the research design to be put to the test, by ensuring that findings are not just a reflection of the methodology used (Bouchard, 1976). This does not simply mean commingling the two types of data and methods. Using complementary data does not of itself constitute a triangulation, but a natural action used in the majority of research projects (Downey and Ireland, 1979). It is a mistake to think that the ‘qualitative’ researcher does not make use of quantitative data, or that he or she is somehow opposed to measurement (Miles, 1979). The fact that a researcher uses a symbolic numerical system or a symbolic verbal system to translate an observed reality does not necessarily define the type of approach they are using. In their manual on qualitative analysis, for example, Miles and Huberman (1984b) suggest counting data items to highlight recurrence, for the reason that figures are more economical and easier to manipulate than are words, as well as having greater visibility in terms of trends.

The combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches, that is, their complementary and dialectical use, enables researchers to institute a dialogue distinguishing between what is observed (the subject of the research) and the two ways of symbolizing it:

Qualitative methods represent a mixture of the rational, serendipitous, and intuitive in which the personal experiences of the organizational researcher are often key events to be understood and analyzed as data. Qualitative investigators tend also to describe the unfolding of social processes rather than the social structures that are often the focus of quantitative researchers.

(Van Maanen, 1979: 520)

Triangulation allows the researcher to benefit from the advantages of the two approaches, counterbalancing the defects of one approach with the qualities of the other (Jick, 1979).

Source: Thietart Raymond-Alain et al. (2001), Doing Management Research: A Comprehensive Guide, SAGE Publications Ltd; 1 edition.